Статус корпоративной сессии

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond annotations, the description discloses that the tool may re-mint the token and rewrite the session file (while clarifying this is access maintenance, not a user-world change), that it does not print secrets, and that it will report write failures rather than silently returning success. This enriches the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is quite long, with multiple paragraphs covering edge cases and context. While it is front-loaded with the core purpose, the extensive caveats (token renewal, file rewrite, re-login limitation, banking MCP distinction) make it less concise than necessary for a simple status check. All information is relevant, but it could be trimmed.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers all essential context: the token self-renewal behavior, the meaning of a zero balance, the internal write side effect, failure reporting, the impossibility of full re-login, and the distinction from a different MCP session. Combined with the output schema and annotations, this provides a complete picture for the agent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, so there is nothing to explain. According to the rubric, a 0-parameter tool gets a baseline of 4, and the description adds no parameter-specific information because none is needed.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states in the first sentence that this tool checks whether the MyT corporate session is alive by making a request ('Жива ли корпоративная сессия MyT — проверяет ЗАПРОСОМ, а не арифметикой'). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool myt_refresh_session by referring to it for forced refresh.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives explicit guidance: use this tool to check session status, use myt_refresh_session for forced refresh ('Обновить сессию принудительно — myt_refresh_session()'), and never offer password re-login ('предлагать пользователю передать пароль не надо'). It also clarifies that the banking MCP's refresh_session is unrelated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.